The Human Rights Committee,
established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights,

Meeting on 23 July 1998,

Adopts the following:

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY

1. The author of the
communication is Dobroslav Paraga, a Croatian citizen residing in Zagreb. He
claims to be a victim of violations by Croatia of articles 2, paragraph 3,
9, paragraphs 1 and 5, 7, 12, paragraph 2, 14, paragraphs 2 and 7, 19,
paragraphs 1 and 2, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The Covenant entered into force for Croatia on 8 October
1991; the Optional Protocol entered into force for Croatia on 12 January
1996. The author is represented by Mr. Ivan Sladoljev.

THE FACTS AND CLAIMS AS SUBMITTED
BY THE AUTHOR

2.1 The author notes that he
has been a human rights activist throughout his life, and that he has been
imprisoned, tortured and been the subject of political trials in the former
Yugoslavia. In 1990, he re-organized the Croatian Party of Rights (HSP),
which had been banned since 1929. He then became the president of the HSP.

2.2 According to the author,
the new Croatian Government under F. Tudjman has continued to pers On 21
September 1991, the vice-president of the HSP, Ante Paradzik, was murdered
after attending a political rally. The author contends that the attack had
also targeted him, and that it was by pure chance that he had not been in
the car with his colleague. In 1993, four officials of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs were convicted for the murder; they were released in 1995.

2.4 On 22 November 1991, Mr.
Paraga was arrested after a police ambush, on charges of planning to
overthrow the Government. He was kept in detention until 18 December 1991,
when his release was ordered after the High Court found that there was
insufficient evidence in support of the charge. The author alleges a
violation of article 9, paragraph 1 and 5, in this connection. He also
claims that the president of the High Court was dismissed from his functions
after having ruled in his favour.

2.5 On 1 March 1992, an
explosion occurred in the offices of the HSP in Vinkovci, where the author
was scheduled to be present during the day. Several people died in the
blast, but according to the author, no formal investigation has ever taken
place. On 21 April 1992, the author was summoned for having called the
President of the Republic a dictator. Mr. Paraga claims that these events
constitute a violation of article 19 of the Covenant, since the measures
against him were aimed at restricting his freedom of expression.

2.6 On 2 June 1992, Mr.
Paraga was charged with illegal mobilization of persons into an army. He
claims that this charge was designed to prevent him from participating in an
election campaign for Parliament and to run for election to the Presidency
of the Republic. To the author, this was in violation of article 25 of the
Covenant, since he was effectively prevented from running in the elections.
Moreover, he argues that the elections were rigged.

2.7 On 30 September 1992,
the public prosecutor filed an action in the Constitutional Court, with a
view to obtaining a declaration banning the HSP. On 8 November 1992, a
military court in Zagreb initiated an investigation against HSP for
conspiracy to overthrow the Government. For the author, this action
constituted a violation of article 14, paragraph 7, since he had already
been acquitted on this charge in 1991. His parliamentary immunity was
withdrawn for 13 months. On 4 November 1993, the military court dismissed
the charges against the author.

2.8 After a trip to the
United States during which the author had called the President of the
Republic an oppressor, he was charged with slander on 3 June 1993.
Parliament stripped the author of his function as vice-chairman of the
parliamentary committee on human and ethnic rights. The author claims that a
member of the secret police admitted in a statement printed by a weekly
newspaper in July 1993 that he had received an order to assassinate the
author.

2.9 On 28 September 1993,
the ministry of registrations canceled the author's right to represent the
HSP and, according to the author, granted it to an agent who represented the
Government, thereby making the HSP a simple extension of the ruling party.
The author's complaints to the Court of Registrars and to the Constitutional
Court were rejected.

2.10 In the parliamentary
elections of October 1995, the author participated with a new party, the
Croatian Party of Rights -1861, but failed to secure reelection. He argues
that because of the sanctions against him, he could not compete fairly in
the election, in violation of article 25 of the Covenant. According to the
author, the Polling Committee violated the Election Law by its decision of
14 November 1995 not to take into account the invalid ballots (accounting
for 3.31% of the total votes) when calculating the threshold of a minimum 5%
of votes necessary for a party to enter Parliament, thereby artificially
lowering the threshold. According to the author, HSP (then led by a
Government agent) profited from this manoeuvre, because it entered
Parliament although it had not obtained 5% of the total vote. The author and
leaders of ten other political parties filed an objection, which the Polling
Committee dismissed as unfounded on 16 November 1995. On 20 November 1995,
the Constitutional Court dismissed their appeal. To the author, this, and
other, irregularities constitute a violation of article 25.

2.11 The author notes that
attacks on his person continue. He refers to a court order dated 31 January
1995, which was confirmed on 25 March 1996, that he must vacate the office
premises he occupies. To him, this was done to obstruct him in his political
activities. He further notes that his political party was elected as part of
the coalition Government in the County Government of Zagreb, but that the
President of the Republic did not accept the results of the election and
blocked the appointment of a mayor.

STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS AND
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS

3.1 In comments dated 31
October 1997, the State party recalls that when acceding to the Optional
Protocol, it made the following reservation which limits the competence
ratione temporis of the Committee to examine communications: "The Republic
of Croatia interprets article 1 of this Protocol as giving the Committee the
competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject
to the jurisdiction of the Republic of any rights set forth in the Covenant
which results either from acts, omissions of events occurring after the date
on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Croatia." For
the State party, the author's allegations relate almost exclusively to
events and acts which occurred well before the Protocol entered into force
for Croatia on 12 January 1996.

3.2 The State party recalls
that the Committee, in its General Comment 24[52], insisted on its
competence to consider communications related to events and acts which
occurred before the entry into force of the Protocol for a State party, even
in the event of reservations such as the above-mentioned one, if these
events or acts continue to have an effect on the rights of the victim
subsequent to that date. Mr. Paraga claims that attacks against him
continue, adducing the confirmation of the court order to vacate his
premises on 25 March 1996 in support of his argument. The Government notes,
however, that the author claims a violation of separate articles of the
Covenant, and each alleged violation relates to a separate and unconnected
set of events, which were addressed in separate domestic judicial
proceedings. If each violation is to be understood as a separate violation
of the Covenant, the consequences deriving from each case and related action
impacted merely on the concrete legal situation relevant for each case; no
such consequences deprived the author of the enjoyment of the rights he
claimed to have been violated.

3.3 For the State party, the
alleged violations cannot be taken as a continuing process which, taken
together, constitute a separate and continuing violation of the author's
Covenant rights. Mr. Paraga himself does not claim a violation of article
2(1) in relation to the prohibition of discrimination (including
discrimination on the basis of his political opinion) in connection with the
rights allegedly violated. Moreover, some of the judicial procedures
referred to by the applicant were resolved in his favour, such as the
proceedings related to the ban of the HSP, which the public prosecutor
decided to discontinue. That the author was involved in a number of judicial
procedures over the years does not prove that these procedures were mutually
inter-related, nor does it generate the continuing effect the procedures may
have had on the enjoyment of the author's rights. It is thus said to be
"evident" that the acts and events said to constitute violations of the
Covenant were completed before the entry into force of the Protocol for
Croatia, without producing any continuing effects.

3.5 It is conceded that an
exception to the above observations is the court order against Mr. Paraga to
vacate the premises he and his party occupy, which was confirmed on 25 March
1996, i.e. after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Croatia.
But as Mr. Paraga does not claim a violation of article 26 on any of the
grounds listed therein, what he claims to have been violated here is the
right to property, which is not protected by the Covenant and a violation of
which thus cannot be considered by the Committee. Besides, the State party
notes, the Constitutional Court of Croatia can address both the prohibition
of discrimination on the basis of political opinion and the protection of
property, in the context of the protection of fundamental rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. As this avenue was not used by the
author in respect of this allegation, available domestic remedies had not
been exhausted.

3.6 On the basis of the
above, the State party considers the communication inadmissible ratione
temporis and, in respect of the claim in paragraph 3.5 above, because of
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

4.1 In his comments, the
author rejects the State party's arguments related to the inadmissibility
ratione temporis of his claims as "utterly unfounded and false", on the
following grounds:

(a) the murder of his
former deputy and vice-president of the HSP, Ante Paradzik, was never
completely solved. After the second trial of four members of the Interior
Ministry, the perpetrators of the crime were pardoned, and the judge who had
sentenced them for conspiracy lost his job;

(b) the legal action
initiated against the author which led to his arrest on 22 November 1991 and
which resulted in his release for lack of evidence was never formally
finalised, so that the author cannot initiate an action for compensation for
unlawful arrest and unlawful detention;

(c) the procedure against
the author initiated on 21 April 1992 for the offence of slander has not
been terminated;

(d) no fair and impartial
investigation into the bombing of the headquarters of his party on 1 March
1992 in Vinkovci was ever conducted;

(e) no impartial
investigation into the alleged rigging of the elections of 2 August 1992 was
carried out;

(f) no investigation into
the alleged assassination scheme against the author in March 1993, claimed
to have been plotted by members of the Government, was ever carried out;

(g) and finally, after the
author was stripped of the leadership of the HSP, his (former) party turned
into a "satellite" of the ruling party.

According to the author, all the
consequences, legal or otherwise, of actions taken against him by the
Croatian authorities have had lasting effects and continue, and it is wrong
for the State party to assert that the author was not deprived of any of his
rights.

4.2 The author affirms that
he is a victim of a violation of article 26, on the grounds that he has been
discriminated against because of his political opinions. He notes that in
August 1997, proceedings were initiated against him, after a newspaper in
Rijeka had published some of the author's statements linked to his filing an
action against President Tudjman with the International Tribunal in The
Hague, for violation of the laws of war. On 7 October 1997, the County Court
of Zagreb initiated proceedings against the author on the basis of article
191 of the Criminal Code of Croatia, for spreading false information; the
author notes that he may be sentenced to six months' imprisonment if found
guilty. On 4 December 1997, the author was arrested at the Austrian border,
allegedly after misinformation about the purpose of the author's visit had
willfully been given to the Austrian authorities by the Croatian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs - the author was kept 16 hours in Austrian detention. A
similar event had already occurred on the occasion of a visit by the author
to Canada, when he was kept detained for six days in Toronto in June 1996,
allegedly because the Croatian Government had accused him of subversive
activities.

4.3 The author rejects as
incorrect the Government's argument that the legal procedures related to the
evacuation and dispossession of the flat used as party office had nothing to
do with discrimination on the basis of political opinion. Rather, he
asserts, it was only because of international public pressure and due to the
intervention of the flat's owner, who also has Canadian citizenship, that
the court decision of 25 March was not enforced.

4.4 As to the possibility of
having the Constitutional Court rule on claims of unlawful discrimination
and illegal expropriation and violations of other fundamental rights, the
author contends that the Court "is an instrument of the governing oligarchy
and that [on] essential matters, the decisions of ... President Tudjman" are
not questioned. Therefore, such constitutional remedies are said to be
ineffective, and the author argues that in respect of all the above issues
and claims, he has exhausted domestic remedies.

ADMISSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Before considering any
claims contained in a c communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in
accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it
is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

5.2 The Committee recalls
that upon acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party entered the
following declaration: "The Republic of Croatia interprets article 1 of this
Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider
communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic
of Croatia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any
rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions
or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force
for the Republic of Croatia", that is, after 12 January 1996. The Committee
notes that most of the alleged violations of Mr. Paraga's rights under the
Covenant result from a series of acts and events which occurred between 1991
and 1995 and thus precede the date of entry into force of the Optional
Protocol for Croatia.

5.3 The Committee considers,
however, that the author's claims that he cannot initiate an action for
compensation for his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention of 22 November
1991, since it has never been formally finalized, as well as his claim that
the procedure initiated against him on 21 April 1992 for slander has never
been terminated, relate to incidents that have continuing effects, which in
themselves may constitute a violation of the Covenant. The Committee
considers therefore that these claims are admissible and should be examined
on the merits.

5.4 The Committee considers
that it is precluded ratione temporis, in the light of the declaration made
by the State party upon accession to the Optional Protocol, from considering
the remainder of the communication in so far as it relates to events which
occurred before 12 January 1996, since the continuing effects claimed by Mr.
Paraga do not appear to constitute in themselves a violation of the
Covenant, nor can they be interpreted as an affirmation, by act or clear
implication, of the alleged previous violations of the State party. [FN1]

5.5 In relation to the court
order ordering the author to vacate the apartment he uses as an office of
his political party, the Committee has noted the State party's argument that
complaints about unlawful and arbitrary dispossession of property and
unlawful discrimination may be adjudicated by the Constitutional Court. The
author merely contends that this remedy is not effective, as the
Constitutional Court is "an instrument of the governing oligarchy". The
Committee recalls that mere doubts about the effectiveness of domestic
remedies do not absolve a complainant from resorting to them; the Committee
notes in this context that in respect of other alleged violations of his
rights, Croatian tribunals have ruled in the author's favour in the past. In
the circumstances, the Committee concludes that recourse to the
Constitutional Court in relation to the order to vacate the apartment used
as office premises by the author would not be a priori futile; accordingly,
the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol have
not been met in this respect.

5.6 With regard to the
author's claim that he is a victim of a violation of article 26, referred to
in paragraph 4.2 above, the Committee considers that this claim is
admissible and should be examined on its merits.

6. The Human Rights
Committee therefore decides:

(a) that the communication
is admissible in so far as it relates to the author's arrest and detention
on 22 November 1991, the slander proceedings initiated against him on 21
April 1992, and his claim that he is a victim of discrimination;

(b) that, in accordance with
article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the State party shall be
requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of
transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements
clarifying the matter and the measures, if any, that may have been taken by
it;

(c) that any explanations
or statements received from the State party shall be communicated by the
Secretary-General under rule 93, paragraph 3, of the rules of procedure to
the author, with the request that any comments which he may wish to make
should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within six
weeks of the date of the transmittal;

(d) that this decision on
admissibility may be reviewed upon consideration of the merits, in the light
of any explanations or statements submitted by the State party, pursuant to
rule 93, paragraph 4, of the Committee's rules of procedure.

(e) that this decision shall be communicated to the State party and
to the author.